I read it this morning before I went to work and found it a very interesting read. What kind of scared me is how he discussed the development times are expanding and expanding. Makes me wonder what the average development time will be a for a single map. I know everyone here already takes about a good month or so for a map to be out the door, or more. This is just for Quake I mind you, it would seem Doom III we might see that stretch into a good 3 months of solid work. Plus I haven't released anything in years, so they frightens me further.

I think it will demand that as mappers we take the attention to detail much further. We will need to more finelly tune our environments to make sure they look realistic with the coenciding (I know I can't spell) art.

Also Carmacks bit on disabling shadows seems a little odd. Sure for performance issues it would be great, but he has always pushed the perforance of hardware. You'd think it would basically kill much of the atmosphere they have worked so hard at.

Think that one through. Doom3 looks to be much more half life and resident evil than quake or halo. Doing coop in that sort of style is much harder, and would certainly require sacrifices on the sp side. I'm guessing they wanted to, but just made the practical choice.

I never liked coop, has absolutely no interest to me, so I wouldn't miss it.

Co-Op Pros And Cons (IMO)

#9 posted by Tigger-oN [80.132.159.130] on 2003/05/16 07:53:11

This is how I see it.

Games that worked with Co-Op;
Serious Sam
Doom 2
Duke Nuke
Quake
Sonic the Hedgehog

Why? Because it did not matter to the story that much. You could start, stop, leave or join a game at any stage. Someone could find the exit and that was that, everyone jumped through to the next level. These games are just "You and your mates, shoting the monsters and having some fun with a mouse in one hand a beer in another (and maybe some pizza in a box)".

Games that did not (or would not) work as a Co-Op;
Half-Life
Unreal
RtCW
Donkey Kong
Alien Vs Preditor 2
Jeti Knight 2

Why not? Because they are story based and for the game to work the story needs to progress. Sure it could be a lot of fun to have a small team going into battle (co-op) but that is what mulitplayer is for. It also requires a LOT more work on the developers side (unless you are just shooting shit) to make a Co-Op gameplay that flows and keeps the richness of the story. Things like "what happens when a key is required", "what happens when a player exits the map", "what happens in a cut-scene, do we just stop show all the players?", the list goes on and on...

Doom3 is a story rich game (well, so we are told) and Co-Op, as cool as it could be, will not allow for the atmosphere the game has been designed around (I'm guessing based on screenshots and interviews). Removing Co-Op allows for the developers to focus on getting the single player as rich and atmopsheric as possible. Besides that, unless the Co-Op is _amazing_ reviews will focus on how the Co-Op "seems to have been thrown together", which is a negative.

What I would like to see is Co-Op mod made by the community, hell, I may even look into myself once the game code is released :]

I can't speak for the technical end of things, but I think content wise co-op play is due to make a break through. There are several map styles and puzzles that can only be done in co-op, or are better exploited in co-op. You can have modes where people cooperate, and modes where people both complete the same sp level in a competitive fashion. I think it's time someone did co-op right, and left single player play to be the second class citizen for a change.

It's not really something I expect from Carmack anyways. He's too wrapped up in the technology to make a real game.

I will be getting Doom3. Even if making a real game isn't Carmack's interest, he's not the only man responsible for the game. It won't live up the the hype, but I'm sure there'll be some great stuff in there.

I'm also interested in seeing what the communities will do with Doom3 and HL2. They're both sequels to games that have had great community support, and I'm hoping that kind of support is going to be there right out of the gate and will last a long time.

New starfox game on gamecube will have coop, also zelda legend of the four swords or whatever it's called for gba and gamecube has some kind of coop but with some elements of competition between players.

Maybe we'll see most coop action on consoles these days. Altho when the pc port of halo finally comes there might be some nice coop on the computer too.

I think co-op was one of the things that had to be axed from the pc port of Halo. It's unforgivable really. I have two theories on why the port has taken so damn long. Either Microsoft rushed Bungie so much that the code base ended up a friggin mess, or Bungie placed retarded monkies in charge of said port.

If the port takes any damn longer someone will have already written an X-Box emulator and pcs will be fast enough to run it flawlessly.

There was some recent interview with somone responsible for the pc port in wich he said that the network aspects was one of thoughest problems. The reason for that was that in the xbox verision you knew you'd always have people playing on the same box or between xboxes with a fixedspeed of 100mbit so the network code was very simple and far from what you see in a modern FPS.

Yeah, I read that article. I understand that the networking would be the most difficult part, but it doesn't justify how long the game is taking. I know that Microsoft wanted an X-Box exclusive, but I can't imagine they intended to have the PC version this far behind.

Ive never been into Halo, I was waiting for it when I read previews ages ago, but im very disappointed with the game on the Xbox, Coop was the only thing that kept my interest.

If coop doesn't make it in the pc port then i certainly won't be buying it.

And the stupid noises the monsters made... AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Coop On PC

#23 posted by ELEK [24.50.207.169] on 2003/05/19 19:21:45

Coop on PC just isn't reasonable imo. There aren't enough people who network and play coop like you have with console systems. To release Doom3 for console w/out coop would be foolish. Don't get me wrong, I would love to play coop over a lan etc. like in the good ole' days of Doom/2. But from a development standpoint I can understand why they might not be doing it. I don't know how the cutscenes work in Doom3, and how that would effect coop mode, coding etc. I assume they could be turned off for coop, but perhaps there is something in there that makes the cut sequences more difficult to create for the SP experience if you include coop etc.

In the end we all know that id is a technology shop, Doom3 should be fun, but it will not live up to every expectation. They are not looking to break new ground in terms of gameplay, just to do the absolute least to match existing acceptable gameplay minimums, and blow us away with the visual and aesthetic in order to sell more licenses. This is and has been their business strategy, I don't see them changing it. I am afraid if you want groundbreaking gameplay, you will have to wait for DeusEx2 and Halflife2.

Both Doom and Quake 1 were huge leaps in terms of gameplay when they were released. There had never been anything like them before. In fact part of ID's genius has been to produce brilliant new engines AND excellent gameplay to complement the engine. You could even argue q3 was a leap for DM-gameplay. Half-life was not a leap for Gameplay, IMO.

its obviously true ID have licensed the engine, but thats becuase they make such damn good engines, that they are constantly in demand from other developers.

I am somewhat surprised to hear you making such a strong argument against the gameplay of ID, as you obviously loved quake 1 and understood it very well, as evidenced by all the great maps you made for it.

Again that is as weak an argument as you say elek puts forward. It was probably the first game to not have just the run, shoot and find the exit gameplay integrated reasoanbly well. Whether or not you consider that a good thing is another issue though.

possibly you are right. i hate the game anyway, i only played the first few levels.

quake3:

well its just seems like perfectly refined DM gameplay to me. Its fast..i just like the feel of it. I love the railgun. it speeds up the DM gameplay mechanism so much, i love insatgib. I dont even like DM gameplay that much (as you have probably guessed by now), but it feels so good to me i play quake 3 with bots just for the hell of it.

I am the first to admit i am not a DM expert though, i know some people swear q1 or even q2 DM is the best, so i am really going on instinct on the DM side of things. :/

possibly you are right. i hate the game anyway, i only played the first few levels.

Then you are in no position to be judging its gameplay.

What made HL so good was it took the default, plotless/brainless find-the-colored-key gameplay that id 'invented' and used every possible connotation spun together with an actual story. And it wasn't story as in 'excuse us while we yank you out of the game and shove a cliche-ridden cut scene in your face to promote our franchise'. I mean an actual story, with all the plot elements of the genre, dialogue, characterisation and even humour.

I agree with you about Q3A tho. It's immediately gratifying. It's fun. Which is a word that many players' vocabulary lacks. People only say Quakeworld or Q2DM is better because that's all they're used to. There's no way Quakeworld is better than Q3 - you can barely move with half the responsiveness of Q3.
And Q3 weapons are better for DM. Period.

Sandy Petersen: That we did not move on to another type of game after DOOM II. I think the plotless FPS shoot-'em-up had been thoroughly explored and it was time for "something new."

Might I remind you that Doom and Doom2 and Quake are all the same gameplay model based upon Wolfenstein 3d. There is nothing new in there, just additions and tweaks. Doom added 2.5D and fab lighting, network play. Doom2 added the double barrel. Then Quake added 3d and look up and down, but in terms of actual "GAMEPLAY" the model is the same. It never changed...get the key, open the door, shoot the shit, get to the exit, get the key, open the door shoot the shit, get to the exit, get the key to open the door and shoot the shit and get to the exit. Please, how is my argument weak? I would even argue that Q2 is the same exact gameplay model, with Hexen style unit based gameplay.

In fact, Half-Life, which I consider to be based on that exact gameplay model imho is more of an advance in gameplay than any of id's post Wolf games. The addition of a storyline which develops as you progress, granted it is not the most amazing story, but a well developed progression, combo'd with NPC interaction, and intelligent monsters who didn't just gang rush you. Add in the scripted sequences, and the interaction of the main character/player in the events which bring down the black mesa complex, and you have real character integration into the storyline etc. thereby influencing the belief in this game environments offered reality. I realize there are alot of people on this board who dislike Half-Life, but to just toss off the obvious influence/advancements because of a subjective opinion of the game is goofy. It is my opinion that pure sales figures, and numbers of users still playing the game are facts that Half-Life was and still is a success. There is no denying it, despite subjective opinions.

AS for gameplay models, IMO a gameplay model doesn't change that much by the introduction of a new technology feature which does not push the storyline, or engage the players suspension of belief more, it changes it yes, but enough to consider it a Leap? I hardly think so. Don't get me wrong, I love Quake, and it was amazing at the time, but I think what made it so fucking great was not the SP gameplay model. I loved the atmosphere. What made the atmosphere so damned good? The limited color pallete. In terms of lighting and texturing. This is part of the reason Doom3 looks so fucking hot, they are not going apeshit with the color scheme. And in terms of playing the game, I played more CTF online in the early days before I began mapping. The big leap for Quake came with the multiplayer TCPIP capabilities, THAT changed gameplay. No longer did we have to set-up a lan, I could go online and DM all I wanted. Cause everyone knows that Coop play always turned into DM with monsters anyhow.

It's terrible. The movement is terrible, the visibility of other players is terrible, the damage feedback is utterly appalling, the head and weapon bob make me want to puke. It feels light, tinny, and barely in control. It's not the worst out there (Requiem, any Lithtech engine, HL) but it's fucking bad enough given the need for a precise feeling in a DM game.

People who can't see that sort of stuff compared to the simple, direct solidity of Quake confirms my belief that most people (including developers) don't have a clue about the importance of 'feel'.

Stock Q3 DM is almost worthless, given the pre-existing, same-but-better Q1 DM.

The movement in standard Q3 feels so bad its almost unplayable. The engine is fabulous, its just poor design decisions (eg almost nonexistant air movement) which make it feel shithouse.

CPMA on the other hand is awesome; essentially the same game, but done right.

People only say Quakeworld or Q2DM is better because that's all they're used to. There's no way Quakeworld is better than Q3 - you can barely move with half the responsiveness of Q3.
And Q3 weapons are better for DM. Period.

No. Your opinion. Not mine.

In my opinion, Q1 was a far superior DM game. Not just because I was used to it. Because it was better.

Before you claim that my opinion is worthless and I only like Q1DM over Q3DM because I'm more used to Q1, let me put that into perspective: I actually think Q3 with CPMA is a better DM game than Q1. Stock Q3, however, is bollocks.

And while I think CPMA is a better game than Q1, it still lacks that 'solid' feel that Quake had, as Shambler describes.

i was wondering if anyone cares to discuss basic differences betw HL2 and D3 engines. like lighting techniques (or shades), any info on weapon/model animation. just curious about any material that may be around...

so you are claiming that a superb DM map, for example bal3dm2/3/4, or lun3dm1/2/3 is essentially "terrible" and "unplayable"?

[mr fribbles only in vanilla q3, not in CPMA, presumably??].

in fact that all the maps made for Q3A, and all the people who play them, are all crap/wrong[respectively] in vanilla Q3A?

that seems silly.

[who knew i would end up defending Q3A DM against mr fribbles and shambler!!??!!]

Leaps And Ether

#49 posted by spentron [66.33.195.194] on 2003/05/21 13:29:13

I can somewhat accept that Quake wasn't originally a "leap" forward, but it definitely was once people made maps with a huge amount of vertical enemy spread. When that happened, it became more about looking and seeing than just reacting to obvious monsters. Not a completely different gameplay mechanic, but far greater than the difference between Quake and Half-Life (or should that be far greater than the difference between DooM and Half-Life, since HL isn't about seeing either (although I do like it)).

Q3A I like. Never played it online. The movement and all may not be quite as good as Quake (although the comment about lack of air movement I don't get, since you rely on it so often and it's far in excess of realistic). But, despite many's criticism of the bots, that's the main reason I love it. So much different from any Quake bots (although they're also fun). Beating those bots requires fierce determination and insane speed. I was getting as good a frame rate in Q3 as I was in Q1 and it still wasn't good enough because it's so much faster than any other game -- decent equipment alone has allowed me to go up a notch on the skill.

OTOH, I hate the railgun. Satisfying perhaps when it works for you, but I thought this was a game intended for online play. Most lag-intolerant weapon ever.

It probably is. The amount you need to lead your target with a 100 ping is rather unfair because of the speed of the game. However, the situation is made a little better if you get into unlagged games.

you have to evaluate games' gameplay contribution in relation to what it adds to previous games.

In that respect, wolf3d was clearly a milestone. Doom was an incredible step ahead too, given that its vastly more complex level design possibility (which current games still have trouble competing with, think moving sectors, large amounts of enemies, and large open areas) gave us a completely new step in gameplay. Quake was not as big a step ahead, but still significant (personally I think the more consistent physics, allowing grenades, rocket jumps etc. made for an entire new feel of being in a 3d world).

Any game beyond that have progressively smaller gameplay contributions, half-life made a relative big one I hate to say, but not on the same scale as games before it. If you don't recognise half-life is still the same "kill stuff, hit the switch, move on" gameplay of doom & quake, you are pretty much blind and can't be helped.

Thinking half-life 2 will be ground breaking gameplay is even more blind, it is, on the grand scale of things, just a natural progression of HL1. Don't get me wrong, I have seen the HL2 video multiple times and I am STUNNED at the production quality of this game and looking forward to it, but it is not "ground breaking" bar their use of physics. You cannot compare this with the leap from, say, wolf3d to doom.

something that maybe emerging form this discussion is what is the boundary between the two concepts of "gameplay" and "the engine". See now to me, one of the reasons i say Quake 1 was a huge leap in gameplay was becuase it had true 3D and of course you could look up/down and jump.

Now those features i classify as part of "gameplay", but others in this thread might say they are features of "the engine" (which they are as well). But i put them primarily under gameplay becuase they effect the gameplay , ie enemies can attack from above annd below, maps are designed in true 3d etc etc. To me, this is a huge leap in gameplay.
To others its still kill/find key/find exit.
Sure these goals are the same, i agree but the "method of gameplay" to reach those goals has fundamentally changed.
After all the goal of any game is basically the same, survive as long as you can and get the best score/complete the game.

Now me move to half-life. This is where it gets really interesting. See, to me Half-life gameplay is fundamentally no different to Quake 1. You still walk down corridor/kill/walk into room/kill/find exit, basically. Half-life adds a story and scripted events, but to me these things are NOT part of the GAMEPLAY of a game. They are part of "the engine". This was the original distinction i mentioned, its all a matter of where you draw this distinction.

Also, story and scripted events are basically what movies or books have. If i want to read a story or watch people acting in scenes then i will read a book or watch a movie.

To me the pure gameplay experience of actually playing a game is "diluted" by sitting thorugh story telling scripted sequences and cutscenes.
To me ,the train ride at the start of half-life added nothing to the game, fundamentally.
maybe thats narrow-minded of me, i would just say i dont like games being diluted from their "purest form".

In this sense i guess it is fair to say i am an old skool gamer i just want to play the game, not "interact" in what (to me) is a diluted and confusing mix of a book/film/game (metal gear solid would be a classic example).

Its not surprising i feel this way as the first video games i played were on the atari VCS and arcade games like Asteroids and Defender, first impressions count.

as far as the advancements of HL was... well, the story is that of Dooms, only now youre a scientist instead of a marine. which doesnt change much in the game at all... the scientists are keys with more animation and sounds... theyre not terribly unique considering in Unreal you had the nali who would lead you to important sections of the game, reveal secrets for you, and could be killed by you or the enemy. but it was generally to your advantage to protect them.
i never really felt like the storyline was advancing, as much as i was getting new shit to kill... it was nice of them to throw in the twist of the marines showing up to kill you off, however they told us about this before the game came out, so the only twist in the plotline was revealed beforehand. and it wasnt pumped much in the game anyways... it was vaguely mentioned some, that the marines were coming, but it didnt feel me with a sense of being helped (partially because the developers made it widely known before hand that they were there to kill you). still portions of it were fun, however the ai didnt stun me, especially after all they promised regarding it... it wasnt as much of the soldiers using squad behaviour as it felt like they were glued together, and they didnt react to the actions of other squadmates usually (one yells grenade and the others stand there as he runs off, or often the case, takes cover ontop of it). true they didnt rush forward and kill me, but they didnt do much else aside from... sit there. so instead of running forward killing stuff grabbing keys and going through doors, i was running forward, waiting for scientists to open doors and killing stuff. and then sometimes waiting for other stuff to kill stuff for me (to which i mention the time where you let the stone titan take care of the kraal elite and then attacked him in the dasa pass of unreal, and the much much more intricate system of monster relations seen in Blood2). and the plot kinda... went away, when i reached Black Mesa. it was, "well, we dont know... but theres new aliens to shoot?". HL was a few steps forward in gameplay, but even moreso if you ignore other games in the period and dont pay attention to how absolutely completely linear the game is for the most part.

as for the quakeworld versus q3a argument... i enjoy both. which is fine by me. i see em as diff types of deathmatch, and i think the q3a bots are weak (model files with high accuracy as the only advancement in skill... and they make em easier by taking away their health instead of making them less skilled at fighting)

I personally feel that Unreal was quite a significant intermediary step in the advancement of FPS gaming complexity (which I think is an incremental rather than revolutionary advancement - Quake2 advanced it somewhat too). You had a slightly stronger overall story, various sub-stories revealed via the translator (Bluff anyone?), a coherent backdrop and setting, NPCs that actually did something, scripted events, a few non-fighting scenes, and a sense of discovery at exploring a world around you.

Of course HL did that and more but it wasn't a straight jump from Q1 to HL.